Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
3/20/2017 5:03:23 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:21:29 PM EDT
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:22:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/16/2013 12:34:32 AM EDT by maleante]
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:23:02 PM EDT
If we could throw out all the Federal Bullshit and leave it all up to the states, I would be fine with that. The smart states would prosper and have freedom, the dumbass ones like NY would be fail slums until they stopped being so authoritarian.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:23:20 PM EDT
"Shall not be infringed."
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:24:23 PM EDT
It's my right to keep, not something that can be taken away by any government, local or federal. It is my freedom.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:24:54 PM EDT
Then the 14th says all the bill of rights apply to all state and local governments. I personally don't agree with the principle as it was added after the civil war, but that is what it says. If the folks up in NY want to roll over for this and keep electing libtards that's their business. We'll run things like we want to down here in GA. That's the way it was designed to work, but the 14th changed all that.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:24:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


This.

Go back and read the 10th again... Look for the word respectively.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:15 PM EDT
McDonald v Chicago ya big dope
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:15 PM EDT
McDonald v. Chicago held that the 2nd applies to states and localities, too, by way of the 14th's Equal Protection clause.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:24 PM EDT
I guess the ink smeared where it says but can be infringed by the state yo
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:38 PM EDT
This is a bit of an internal debate for me, as well. I remain torn on the root issue, however the reality of the situation is the 10th amendment died a long time ago.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 7:30:03 PM EDT by gonzo_beyondo]

Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?

I think you should read the NY state Constitution.

http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm

And http://law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/

Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law provides:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:26:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 7:27:17 PM EDT by Rider_No2]
You would be right... if it weren't for incorporation doctrine.

Now if you want to debate the legitimacy of incorporation doctrine, that's another conversation. But the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment applies to the states.


Edit: Came in late.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:26:31 PM EDT
14th Amendment also says hello.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:26:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bstonemega:
It's my right to keep, not something that can be taken away by any government, local or federal. It is my freedom.


This, and it was given to all of us by a higher power than government and therefore government cannot take it away, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence make this clear.

Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:27:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RifleCal30m1n00b:
McDonald v. Chicago held that the 2nd applies to states and localities, too, by way of the 14th's Equal Protection clause.


+1 This was a very big deal. A few years ago, the OP would have a case. Now, no way.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:27:21 PM EDT
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:27:22 PM EDT
As are 20k + others.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:32:32 PM EDT
The bill of rights is a "hands off" list for government on every level.
There is a lot of room for states to do their own thing but within the context of the baseline rules.

States can't infringe on free speech or due process, the bill of rights is the supreme law of the land.
Read up on the supremacy clause and Fourteenth Amendment.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:32:44 PM EDT
14th Amendment.
Prior to the 14th, what you said would be accurate.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:32:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 7:33:17 PM EDT by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By dbuster:

The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.




NOTHING in that statement is even remotely within the same galaxy of being accurate.


Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:33:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.


Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:33:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


Your rights were infringed last night.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:34:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


And then there is that part.

Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:34:30 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


QFT!
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:34:56 PM EDT
So the federal government can't violate a natural right but a state can? No.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:35:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NoVaGator:
McDonald v Chicago ya big dope


DING DING DING
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:36:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:36:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Weld4fun:
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


QFT!


NO.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:37:51 PM EDT
14th Amendment
Heller
DC
CHICAGO
MILLER

Look em up and get back to us.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Natural born rights can not be infringed by anyone.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:09 PM EDT
There are more than 10 Amendments.

The 14th amendment forbids the States from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of Citizens, therefore requiring the States to recognize the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:26 PM EDT
This is actually one of the most intelligent constitutional Q&A sessions I've read on this site in the past few years.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Read McDonald v. Chicago, and the 14th Amendment, and get back to us.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:39:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.


Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


There are no absolutes in law, but what I posted is generally true. It is true enough for the purposes of this thread.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:39:32 PM EDT
Make that argument for the 13th and 1st Amendment and see how far ya get.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:40:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Renegade13B:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.

I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers.


Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


There are no absolutes in law, but what I posted is generally true. It is true enough for the purposes of this thread.


Horseshoes and hand grenades?
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:41:58 PM EDT
The constitution and its amendments can not be subverted by state laws.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:43:08 PM EDT
Did you read the 14th amendment?
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:43:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By sav_carguy:
There are more than 10 Amendments.

The 14th amendment forbids the States from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of Citizens, therefore requiring the States to recognize the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.


SCOTUS incorporated most of the first 10 amendments via due process, not P&I even though P&I makes more sense...
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:43:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 7:45:17 PM EDT by Forgetfull]
Shall not be infringed?


Can states remove freedom of religion and speech?
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:44:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DigDug:
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Natural born rights can not be infringed by anyone.


All rights can be infringed.

Natural rights are just as subjective as anything else. The only rights you have are the ones that have been fought for to be protected. A natural right means nothing; protected rights mean everything. The only thing between a protected right and nothing is the people willing to fight for it.

In many places, economic rights (freebes) are a natural right. They fight for it, but I would bet you wouldn't consider free food a natural right.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:45:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 7:45:52 PM EDT by motown_steve]
I think that's bullshit
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:45:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JAMES77257:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


Your rights were infringed last night.


Insofar as an irrelevant piece of paper was signed by a shithead, my rights were infringed.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:13 PM EDT
Wasn't there a civil war or something fought over a matter of some states doing whatever the hell they wanted? To those of us behind enemy lines, sadly, "states rights" has become synonymous with civil (gun) rights violations.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Atomic_Ferret:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


And then there is that part.



And there are many here, who have stated in no uncertain terms, that people who believe that are retards. I have not noticed many of them posting that lately, and others who have come around, or have they....

Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:45 PM EDT
Heller ruled the 2nd protects handguns in the home.
McDonald incorporated that to the states.

Thats the scope of the 2nd under current case law.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:47:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


I think Cuomos Law violates NYS Civil Service Law

§ 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.


//law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/CVR04_4.html
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:49:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dbuster:
I had a thought.

Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government.

So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves.

Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me.

What do you think?


Can you diagram a sentence? If so do so and you will have your answer
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:49:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/15/2013 7:53:47 PM EDT by bloodsport2885]
I think you're forgetting that federal law trumps state and that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights afforded EVERY citizen, regardless of state, by their Creator. Meaning the new law in NY is BREAKING federal law and suppressing the inalienable human rights of citizens.
Link Posted: 1/15/2013 7:50:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stutzcattle:
Originally Posted By shocktrp:
"Shall not be infringed."


By the federal gov't.


Which version is correct?

1. Amendment II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

2. Amendment II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the federal government."
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top